1989 PLP 1247 (SCMR)
SAJJAD AHMAD KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1247 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | SAJJAD AHMAD KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil service‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1247 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1247 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1247 (SCMR) (SAJJAD AHMAD KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sanaullah Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court and M. A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th February, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal dated 10‑7‑1984 in Appeal No.2/274 of 1984). ‑‑‑Dismissal‑‑Petitioner was working as Drilling Supervisor and was charge- sheeted for misusing the Drilling Boring Plant‑‑Service Tribunal after going through the record of the case found that petitioner was responsible for the misuse of plant and shortage of lining pipe‑‑Tribunal had examined the relevant record, took into consideration the factual position and also made sure that there had been no violation of any rule or instructions and ultimately dismissed the appeal‑‑Supreme Court declined interference.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Sajjad Ahmad Khan, Ex‑Drilling Supervisor, Agricultural Engineering, Sargodha has filed this petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal dated 10‑7‑84 whereby his appeal against the dismissal order by Director Agriculture was dismissed. The petitioner was working as Drilling Supervisor Sargodha. He was charge‑sheeted for misusing the Drilling/Boring plant of 10" and 8" dia etc. The Tribunal after going through the record of the case held the petitioner responsible for the misuse of the drilling plant and for the shortage of lining pipes of 6" and 5" dia. The Tribunal examined the relevant record, took into consideration the factual position and also made sure that there had been no violation of any rule or instructions and ultimately dismissed the appeal. We don't think the judgment of the Tribunal is subject to any exception. Not a fit case for leave Dismissed. M.B.A./S‑278 /S Petition dismissed.